The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
An order from a Florida judge in a lawsuit vs Chipotle should serve a warning to all food marketers that they could be sued if they make non-GMO claims about foods containing dairy or meat from animals fed GE feed, legal experts have warned.
. . . .
There is not, yet, a federal legal definition of ‘non-GMO ingredients’, although most state bills calling for mandatory GMO labeling . . . do not require GE labels on meat or dairy from animals fed GE feed, or on products made with GE processing aids/enzymes.
However, some consumers take a harder line, and think non-GMO claims should not be used if genetic engineering has been used at any stage in the production process.
. . . .
Share this article
No reasonable consumer, claims Chipotle, would assume that ‘no GMO ingredients’ means the animals it sources its food from only eat non-GMO feed.
However, in an order granting in part and denying in part Chipotle’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Florida US district judge Marcia G Cooke said that this was no means obvious.
She added: “While Chipotle has presented evidence that scientific as well as some proposed legal definitions of GMOs explicitly exclude the very items Ms. Reilly [the plaintiff] includes in her own definition, Ms. Reilly has responded with evidence that some consumers and legislators carry the same interpretation of the term espoused in her allegations.
“The divergence in the parties’ positions only indicates that. . . more evidence is needed to establish. . . a definition of the term . . .Therefore, I decline to dismiss Ms. Reilly’s claims on an implausibility basis at this stage.”
Read full, original post: Non-GMO claims on foods containing dairy or meat are fertile ground for false ad lawsuits, warn attorneys
